Apart from used game sellers, no one in the industry likes used games. Titles can be sold, traded in, and resold time and again. That cycle makes used-game retailers such as GameStop money, but publishers are left out in the cold. The one-time use code for online games announced by EA is one strategy for trying to cash in on used games sales, and other companies are joining in.

If you buy a copy of UFC Undisputed by THQ, you'll get a code to play online. Those who buy the game used will have to pay $5 to play online. The company detailed the online mode to Destructoid, talking up a feature that allowed players to train and fight with their virtual fighters online. "This multiplayer content for UFC Undisputed 2010 will be available via a one-time code included with the game at purchase. Codes for accessing the content will be available for second-time buyers for an additional $5." While EA allows a free seven-day period to play a used or rented game online to try the features, THQ did not describe a similar system.

Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez is also keen on the idea. "We are looking very carefully at what is being done by EA regarding what we call the '$10 solution,' and we will probably follow that line at sometime in the future," he said in an earnings call, as reported by Gamasutra.

This is just the beginning; if gamers prove tolerant of these codes, other publishers will rush to jump on the bandwagon. GameStop needs used games to maintain its profit margins. Use codes devalue used games by $5-10 per title, which may put a crimp on the retailer's earnings if it is forced to drop prices in response. We'll be watching to see who else begins this practice.

225 Reader Comments

This is just the beginning; if gamers prove tolerant of these codes, other publishers will rush to jump on the bandwagon. GameStop needs used games to maintain its profit margins. Use codes devalue used games by $5-10 per title, which may put a crimp on the retailer's earnings if it is forced to drop prices in response. We'll be watching to see who else begins this practice.----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would gamers be tolerant of this fashion of doing business? They are in effect trying to destroy the second hand market. Talk about being anti recycling. There is no way that I will buy any game that uses this form of cash grab.

I'm with you Ghost. This bs has to stop, and it is up to the consumer to show these companies how they feel using their wallets. They are all becoming about how little do hey have to deliver and how much much money can they bring in. I've slowed purchasing of games, and only get those I really think offer value to me.

I overheard people talking about the Modern Warfare 2 map packs a few days ago. They said "Oh, it's a cool deal. You even get maps that originally came with MW1!". Naturally I told them that it was a waste of money and they responded with "Would they really release it if it was a waste of money?".

The scenario above is why voting with our wallets won't work. For every one of us who votes with our wallet, there will be 9 fanboys eying whatever crap the companies release so they can eat it up. The average gamer is stupid and these companies realize that.

Too many people are uninformed about what goes on in the game business. most will buy these games without even knowing and then just buy the card if they want to play on line not realizing that they are ruining the gaming industry by supporting the removal of features at additional cost. This has been going on for some time since DLC became so commonplace.You almost have to buy all the overpriced rehashed map packs(which used to be free by the way) if you want to play the latest FPS on line with anyone. they are going to continue to things like this until the people do something about it. At this point though, it seems it's already too late.

Simple solution to make everyone happy. Reduce cost of all games by 10$, make the 'online code' available only as a separate item.

Players who want to play the game new and solo pay 50$.Players who want to play the game new and online pay 60$ (already the normal price of a game).Players who want to play the game used and solo pay 45$.Players who want to play the game used and online pay 55$ (already the cost of a used 'new' game, and thanks to the fact that every online player has to buy this card the distributor gets a cut of the profit without artificially raising the price.)

This is the only way they could get a cut of used game sales and have it be legitimate. I bet it would increase their overall profits as well.

$10 to play online is really a big deal to you guys? Shit, I was paying $15 a month to play WoW and that didn't bother me. This is a one-time fee and you get to use their servers whenever you want as long as they keep them online, that "rental" fee doesn't seem all that high to me.

If it's not worth it to you to play online for $10, then sure, vote with your wallet and don't pay the fee. If, however, you're buying the used game so you can play with friends and the cost of the used game + $10 to play online is less than what is costs new over at BestBuy....how is this a bad thing? Everyone seems to win in that scenario.

$10 to play online is really a big deal to you guys? Shit, I was paying $15 a month to play WoW and that didn't bother me. This is a one-time fee and you get to use their servers whenever you want as long as they keep them online, that "rental" fee doesn't seem all that high to me.

If it's not worth it to you to play online for $10, then sure, vote with your wallet and don't pay the fee. If, however, you're buying the used game so you can play with friends and the cost of the used game + $10 to play online is less than what is costs new over at BestBuy....how is this a bad thing? Everyone seems to win in that scenario.

The problem is for the used game market. If a new game is 60, and a used is 55 then forcing people who buy it used to pay an extra 10 makes the 'used' cost higher than the new cost. It jacks up the market. See my previous post for a solution that would actually win for everyone.

I overheard people talking about the Modern Warfare 2 map packs a few days ago. They said "Oh, it's a cool deal. You even get maps that originally came with MW1!". Naturally I told them that it was a waste of money and they responded with "Would they really release it if it was a waste of money?".

The scenario above is why voting with our wallets won't work. For every one of us who votes with our wallet, there will be 9 fanboys eying whatever crap the companies release so they can eat it up. The average gamer is stupid and these companies realize that.

I know just like grossly overpriced horse armor on Oblivion, or the cheats on (insert EA sports game here) or the on-line on RE5 released at launch at an extra cost, you know the things that used to be included in the games. They just market it as "Bonus Content" and all the fan boys come running with wallets open

As someone who likes to support the developers of the games he likes and thus buys new, I am perfectly fine with a small fee for used buyers to get certain extras. Key word extras though. I wouldn't call online multiplayer an extra as some people don't even care about the single player portion of the game. Things like Mass Effect 2's Cerberus Network is what I would call reasonable to give new buyers for free and require used buyers to pay for.

And as to overpriced DLC as GhostRed mentioned, that is an entirely different issue. Overpriced DLC has nothing to do with buying the game new or used. I agree that paying $15 for 4 maps is ridiculous but what did you expect when it was obvious how little the publisher and developer cared about it's original fan base. The PC version was constrained in many ways and none of the console gamers cared. It wouldn't affect them. Well it didn't immediately affect you but it gave you an idea of what was to come.

Anyway, please note, that as an original purchaser, you're not paying anything extra. It's part of the 60 bucks or w/e to buy the game.

Let's take an example game that has awesome, but shallow online play, IE it's the best thing since sliced bread for a month, then you've done it all. A game like this is great (as a consumer) to pick up used, and can possibly be passed along many times. For a company that's providing a server for that game though, keeping the servers running is basically pointless after 6mos to a year. Charging a nominal fee (and 10 bucks really isn't much on a used game that was what...20?) for online isn't that bad.

Remember, in the case of standard used games, you are taking nothing from the publisher/developer. In the case of a game with a significant multiplayer portion, your used game is now taking resources from them that is diminishing their revenue and ability to make more games. This is of course in specific to a game with an expected lifetime of X, and which after Y amount of time, Z% of the servers could be merged.

Now, having said that, if EA were to pull the same BS they did with the sports game and turn off the servers within a few years of launch, I'd be pissed.

$10 to play online is really a big deal to you guys? Shit, I was paying $15 a month to play WoW and that didn't bother me. This is a one-time fee and you get to use their servers whenever you want as long as they keep them online, that "rental" fee doesn't seem all that high to me.

If it's not worth it to you to play online for $10, then sure, vote with your wallet and don't pay the fee. If, however, you're buying the used game so you can play with friends and the cost of the used game + $10 to play online is less than what is costs new over at BestBuy....how is this a bad thing? Everyone seems to win in that scenario.

You misunderstand -- this is AN ADDITIONAL $10 after you've purchased the game. It just kills the secondhand market.

And the game industry is going to learn, hard, why they've supported those multiplayer game servers as a necessary expense to build a game industry.

Azhrei - You're kidding right? The cerberus network is a massive ripoff, and I was perfectly happy to recoup a large chunk of the box price by selling it. Something, possibly, if they feel like it, six months down the line? Screw that. Oh, and all the good stuff is for-pay DLC anyway.

Azhrei - You're kidding right? The cerberus network is a massive ripoff, and I was perfectly happy to recoup a large chunk of the box price by selling it. Something, possibly, if they feel like it, six months down the line? Screw that. Oh, and all the good stuff is for-pay DLC anyway.

I was just fine with the Cerberus Network as well. Missing anything from it would not have really taken away from the game experience. Having it simply adds on top of an already fulfilling experience. It may have been a bit overpriced (think it wa 15, probably should have been 10), but I was happy with it.

And the game industry is going to learn, hard, why they've supported those multiplayer game servers as a necessary expense to build a game industry.

Azhrei - You're kidding right? The cerberus network is a massive ripoff, and I was perfectly happy to recoup a large chunk of the box price by selling it. Something, possibly, if they feel like it, six months down the line? Screw that. Oh, and all the good stuff is for-pay DLC anyway.

You're proving my point. It's an extra, therefore it's not something you feel is a big deal about. And it did provide something right off the bat, that Zaheed character and his side quest. The used buyers can evaluate whether they care enough to buy it separate, but it isn't needed to get a great deal of enjoyment out of the game. It provides some incentive to buy new and also provides publishers and developers some money from used buyers.

Except it IS a big deal. It let me recoup a decent chunk of the box price, at the expense of what would otherwise (and I *know* this, since I sold it to a friend) would otherwise have been a new sale: instead, it was a second hand purchase and the code from me.

And doing it with games multiplayer is an excellent way to destroy game community and brand loyalty, not to mention lose a large chunk of the very people you want evangelising your game in the first place!

Simple solution to make everyone happy. Reduce cost of all games by 10$, make the 'online code' available only as a separate item.

Players who want to play the game new and solo pay 50$.Players who want to play the game new and online pay 60$ (already the normal price of a game).Players who want to play the game used and solo pay 45$.Players who want to play the game used and online pay 55$ (already the cost of a used 'new' game, and thanks to the fact that every online player has to buy this card the distributor gets a cut of the profit without artificially raising the price.)

This is the only way they could get a cut of used game sales and have it be legitimate. I bet it would increase their overall profits as well.

That is a reasonable, pragmatic, suggestion.

I'd like publishers to distribute their games on two discs. One for the campaign and one for the multiplayer with ALL of the maps, cars, tracks, whatever... on it. You should then be able to sell the campaign on to someone else (or just swap it with a friend for another game's disc) whilst you retain the multiplayer disc.

After all, Halo: ODST already comes with a second Halo 3 Mythic Multiplayer disc (with all formerly released DLC on it). It is not as if DVDs cost much to produce.

Anyway, please note, that as an original purchaser, you're not paying anything extra. It's part of the 60 bucks or w/e to buy the game.

Let's take an example game that has awesome, but shallow online play, IE it's the best thing since sliced bread for a month, then you've done it all. A game like this is great (as a consumer) to pick up used, and can possibly be passed along many times. For a company that's providing a server for that game though, keeping the servers running is basically pointless after 6mos to a year. Charging a nominal fee (and 10 bucks really isn't much on a used game that was what...20?) for online isn't that bad.

Remember, in the case of standard used games, you are taking nothing from the publisher/developer. In the case of a game with a significant multiplayer portion, your used game is now taking resources from them that is diminishing their revenue and ability to make more games. This is of course in specific to a game with an expected lifetime of X, and which after Y amount of time, Z% of the servers could be merged.

Now, having said that, if EA were to pull the same BS they did with the sports game and turn off the servers within a few years of launch, I'd be pissed.

I understand what your saying. It's not a charity and used games hurt that. However this increasingly brazen mentality, that publishers/developers can and should, monetize every motherfucking facet of gaming. Strikes me just as wrong headed as gamers whom think they have a right to pirate.

Regardless of the intent or motive, it comes across that I'm just a stupid cash sponge, that publishers/developers have a god given right to squeeze to their little heart's desire.

Except it IS a big deal. It let me recoup a decent chunk of the box price, at the expense of what would otherwise (and I *know* this, since I sold it to a friend) would otherwise have been a new sale: instead, it was a second hand purchase and the code from me.

And doing it with games multiplayer is an excellent way to destroy game community and brand loyalty, not to mention lose a large chunk of the very people you want evangelising your game in the first place!

In my original post I also mentioned that making multiplayer cost money to used buyers was ridiculous. I was never arguing that publishers should excise entire sections of the game for used buyers to have to pay for. My whole point is that if publishers want to try to get some revenue from used purchases then make it on extras that are not necessary to get the full game experience. Your example still seems to support this. You felt that without the code you were still getting the full game experience. From what I understand, your friend did care about getting the extra content and would have bought new or payed for the extra content if he didn't know anyone he could have gotten it from.

My whole point is that if publishers want to try to get some revenue from used purchases...

Then they need to lobby for changes to First Sale / Exhaustion of Rights. Period. They should not be allowed to restrict the sale of these codes and such onwards in contravention of them.

Quote:

You felt that without the code you were still getting the full game experience.

No, I felt that EA had lopped off a chunk of the game and made it for-pay, given the sparse content of the main game, but that what they'd effectively done was to push 5% of the game into an overpriced code. I'll be waiting for ME3 to hit the bargain bins.

This online code is devaluing a product that I am paying full price for. If they want to do this, they need to drop the price of the game by the same amount otherwise I can't sell it used for the full price that I could in the past.

This fallacy about the used product costing them more is just stupid. If I sell my disc, I can't play it any more. My use is gone and transferred to the new owner.

I think a lot of people are overreacting and missing the point of this. GameStop exists purely because of the used market. They make a LOT of cash off their (frankly) BS pricing; $5-$10 off used game compared to new? That's ludicrous. Instead of attacking the developers who want a piece of the pie GameStop has cut out for itself, you should try buying used games from friends, mom-and-pop shops, or other retailers who don't try to rip you off for a used copy. Buy used games for $20-$30 and that $10 will still likely put you under the retail price for brand new. Guess what, you just made out with a bargain!

Tell GameStop to go screw themselves with their pricing strategy and the bargains can still be found (Amazon, eBay, etc.)

As for the car analogy I just read, that doesn't apply to the way the used market for games has been. Cars degrade in quality over time. Digital media (games, etc.) does not. Ironically enough though, this new policy of EA, THQ and potentially Ubisoft, WILL make the car analogy fit, because the game's worth WILL devalue on the second hand market, exactly like a car. So thanks for proving that point.

As for the car analogy I just read, that doesn't apply to the way the used market for games has been. Cars degrade in quality over time. Digital media (games, etc.) does not. Ironically enough though, this new policy of EA, THQ and potentially Ubisoft, WILL make the car analogy fit, because the game's worth WILL devalue on the second hand market, exactly like a car. So thanks for proving that point.

Cars degrade over time NATURALLY. This is the game publishers degrading the value of something you bought ARTIFICIALLY. Which is exactly akin to the car company selling $50 'codes' so that used car buyers can get their car alarm or immobiliser working properly.

As for the car analogy I just read, that doesn't apply to the way the used market for games has been. Cars degrade in quality over time. Digital media (games, etc.) does not. Ironically enough though, this new policy of EA, THQ and potentially Ubisoft, WILL make the car analogy fit, because the game's worth WILL devalue on the second hand market, exactly like a car. So thanks for proving that point.

Only the end effect fits. Car depreciates over time because once the car is used, it starts to undergo physical degradation. Software on the other hand, now depreciates over time because it's publisher said so.

That said, EA games does really depreciate because EA keeps shutting down their server.